Filing # 189828953 E-Filed 01/16/2024 02:12:08 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION
DIVISION CASE NO.:

WILLIAM FULLER and

MARTIN PINILLA

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CITY OF MIAMI and

JOE CAROLLO

Defendants.

_________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION REMOVING JOE CAROLLO

AS A COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI

1. The Miami City Charter begins with a “Citizens’ Bill of Rights,” emphasizing that

the City “government has been created to protect the governed, not the governing”; that the City,

among other things, “shall not interfere with the rights… of freedom of speech”; and that any

“public official, or employee who is found by the court to have willfully violated this section shall

forthwith forfeit his or her office or employment.”

2. On June 1, 2023, a unanimous federal jury answered yes to the following two

questions: 1) “Did Joe Carollo intentionally commit acts that violated Bill Fuller’s right to free

speech,” and 2) “Did Joe Carollo intentionally commit acts that violated Martin Pinilla’s right to

free speech.” A true and correct copy of the verdict is attached as Exhibit A.
 3. The federal court thereafter entered judgment based upon the jury’s verdict in favor

of Plaintiffs and against Carollo finding that Carollo had willfully violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional

right to free speech. A true and correct copy of the judgment is attached as Exhibit B.

4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby file this action against the City of Miami and Joe

Carollo demanding a declaration, pursuant to the Miami City Charter, that Joe Carollo, as a “public

official” who has been found “by the court to have willfully violated” the Citizens’ Bill of Rights,

must immediately “forfeit his or her office or employment.”

5. Indeed, in commenting on the verdict, the Miami Herald Editorial Board wrote that

“After 40 years, Joe Carollo, Miami’s biggest bully, is finally held accountable,” noted “[i]t took

an out-of-town jury, protected by the law, to point out what we have known for years: Carollo’s

political style damages Miami, its residents and its administration,” and asked: “Now that the legal

system has held him accountable, who will do the same in Miami’s toxic political world? … Will

other commissioners have the courage to stop Carollo?” 1

6. There is no need for other commissioners to act as the decision, pursuant to the

Miami City Charter Bill of Rights, rests with this Court.

7. Plaintiffs Fuller and Pinilla were longtime residents of the City of Miami and both

have standing as residents of the City of Miami because they own numerous properties in the City

of Miami which properties generate millions in property tax revenue for the City of Miami, and

on which businesses operate that also pay taxes to the City of Miami, and employ many residents

of the City of Miami, who also pay taxes to the City of Miami.

1
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article275984206.html#storylink=cpy
 8. Plaintiffs Fuller and Pinilla also have standing as they have suffered a special injury,

different from the injuries of other citizens and taxpayers in that the federal jury found that Carollo

had intentionally committed acts that violated Fuller and Pinilla’s right to free speech.

9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the City Charter and venue is proper as the

City of Miami resides in the City, as does Joe Carollo.

COUNT I-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

10. Plaintiffs hereby seek a declaration, pursuant to Fla. Stat § 86.011, that the finding

by a federal court that Joe Carollo intentionally violated Plaintiffs’ right to free speech results in

Carollo forfeiting his office as a Commissioner for the City of Miami, effective immediately.

11. There is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for a declaration that

Commissioner Carollo has forfeited his office as a Commissioner for the City of Miami by having

been found by a federal court to have intentional deprived a citizen of the right to free speech in

violation of the City of Miami’s Citizens Bill of Rights.

12. There is also a justiciable dispute based upon definite and concrete assertions of

rights under the City of Miami’s Citizens Bill of Rights.

13. The dispute involves both legal and equitable relations between the Plaintiffs,

Carollo and the City of Miami, and the parties have adverse interests with respect to which the

declaration is sought.

14. The dispute is not speculative, and Plaintiffs are not seeking “legal advice by the

courts or the answers to questions propounded from curiosity.”

15. The relief sought is concrete: a declaration that Carollo has forfeited his right to

office and removing him from that office.

 16. Pursuant to Fla. Stat § 86.111, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court “order

a speedy hearing of an action for declaratory judgment and [should] advance it on the calendar.”

17. A speedy hearing – within one month – is appropriate here as no discovery is

required for this action, which is established by the federal court’s verdict and final judgment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a declaration that Joe Carollo has violated the City of

Miami’s Bill of Rights by having been found by a federal court of willfully violating Plaintiffs’

right to free speech, and that Carollo has therefor forfeited is position as a Commissioner for the

City of Miami and is hereby removed “forthwith” – i.e., immediately.

January 16, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

AXS LAW GROUP, PLLC

2121 NW 2nd Ave, Suite 201
Miami, Florida 33127
Telephone: (305) 297-1878

By: /s/ Jeffrey W. Gutchess

Jeffrey W. Gutchess, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 702641
jeff@axslawgroup.com
eservice@axslawgroup.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:18-cv-24190-RS Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2023 Page 1 of 4

U N ITED STA TES DISTR IC T CO UR T

SO U TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO R ID A

Case N o.:1:18-cv-24190

M LLIAM 0 .FULLER ,and

M ARTIN PIN ILLA ,11,

Plaintiffs,

JOE CA ROLLO ,

D efendant.
/

V ER DIC T FO RM

W e,thejury,findby apreponderanceoftheevidence:
1. D id Joe Carollo intentionally com m it acts that violated BillFuller's rightto f'
ree

speech orassernbly?
ves v 'e
No

yyouransweris T'Ab,''yourverdictisinfavoroflkfendant,JoeCarollo,onBillFuller'J
claim,x
çkjpQuestions2-7,andanswerQuestion8.J/koz/ranzweris''
. Yes,''gotothenextquestion.

W ere Joe Carollo'sactionsdone ttunder color''of state law ?

Y es No

yyouransweris ''No,''yourverdictisinfavorofDefendant,JoeCarollo,onBillFuller's
claim,J/cfp Questions3-7,andanswerQuestion8.V'ytpz/ranswerisf'FcJ'
,''gotothenextquestion.
b Case 1:18-cv-24190-RS Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2023 Page 2 of 4

DidJoeCarollo'sconductcauseBillFuller'sinjtlries?
v esv No
Itbouransweris ''No,''yourverdictisinfavorofDefendant,JoeCarollo,onBillFuller's
claim,skip Questions4-7,andanswerQuestion8.J/- yoz/ransweris''Yes,''gotothenextquestion.

4. W ouldJoeCarollohavetakenthesnm eactionstowardBillFullerevenifBillFuller

had notexercised llisFirstA m endm entrights?

Y es x. - J-
Ifyouransweris''1'c5'
,''yourverdictisinfavorofDefendant,JoeCarollo,onBillFuller's
claim,skip Questions5-7,andanswerQuestion8.F' -
m z/ransweris':JH ,''gotothenextquestion.

5. Should BillFullerbe aw arded com pensatory dam agesagainstJoe Carollo?

Y es No

Ifyouransweris&ûYes,''inwhatamount? $ î.(o M il r
Ifyouransweris ''No,''answerQuestion 6. Ifyouransweris ''yp.ç''andyou entered an
amount,l/cfp Question 6andanswerQuestion 7.

6. W hat am ount of nom inal dnm ages should Bill Fuller be aw arded against Joe

Carollo? Theamountshouldbeatleast$1.00.

2
i. Case 1:18-cv-24190-RS Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2023 Page 3 of 4

Should punitive dam ages be assessed against Joe Carollo and in favor of Bill

Fuller?

YesX No
Ifyouransweris1
GYes,'inwhatnmount? $'
J-:''/MiLkpqz

8. Did Joe Carollo intentionally com m itactsthatviolated M artin Pinillas'rightto free

speech orassem bly?

Yes No

Ifyouranswer is r'Ab,''yourverdictis infavorofDefendant,Joe Carollo,on Martin

Pinilla'
sclaim,â'/c#?theremainingquestions,andhaveyourforepersonsignanddatethelastpage
ofthisverdictforp.Y' y/zfransweris TrFcâ'
,''gotothenextquestion.

9. W ere Joe Carollo's actions done tcunder color''ofstate law ?

Y es No

Ifyouranswer is ''No,''yourverdictis infavor ofDefendant,Joe Carollo,on M artin

Pinilla'sclaim,u
ç/cf# theremainingquestions,andhaveyourforepersonsignanddatethelastpage
ofthisverdictform.Y' yozfransweris f'1'c.ç,''gotothenextquestion.

DidJoeCarollo'sconductcauseM artinPinilla'sinjuries?
Y es No

Ifyouranswer is '' No,''yourverdictis infavor of Defendant,JoeCarollo,onM artin

Pinilla'sclaim,,
ç/c#?theremainingquestions,andhaveyourforepersonsignanddatethelastpage
ofthisverdictform.Y' y/z/ransweris ''Yes,''gotothenextquestion.
@ Case 1:18-cv-24190-RS Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2023 Page 4 of 4

W ould Joe Carollo havetaken thesam eactionstow ard M artin Pinillaeven ifM artin

Pinilla had notexercised his FirstA m endm entrights?

Y es No

Ifyouranswer is 'rJ'cl,''yourverdictis infavorofDefendant,Joe Carollo,on Martin

Pinilla'sclaim,andhaveyourforepersonsignanddatethelastpageofthisverdictform.Jfyoz/r
answer is ''YesJ''go to the nextquestion.

Should M artin Pinilla be aw arded com pensatory dam agesagainstJoe Carollo?

Y es No

Ifyouranswerisç&Yes,''inwhatamount? $ c-r',
5 slltlmn
J/-ytltfransweris ff
Ab.
,''answerQuestion l3.J/-
y/z/ransweris ffl'c.
ç'Jandyouenteredan
amount,ski p Question13andanswerQuestion l4.

13. W hatam ount ofnom inaldam ages should M artin Pinilla be awarded againstJoe

Carollo? Theamountshouldbeatleast$1.00.

14. Should punitive dam ages be assessed againstJoe Carollo?

Y es No

Ifyouransweris(çYes,'inwhatamount? $ %1.q lklll-tfp?,

v
So SAY W E A LL.

Foreperson'sPrinted N am e F reper n's Signat e

DATE:(o
' l 4,3
4
EXHIBIT B